I am playing in a king maker campaign. I have recently killed a circus ring leader who was beating a gorilla. Well my spymaster did but I kinda hinted that I needed it done. So he made it look like the strong man did it. Then he was going to get killed, so we made the seen look like the gorilla escaped and killed him for the torture. Needless o say we kinda killed the guy ( he was a dick ). My DM said that our alignment would shift towards evil. I was Like I don't mind that. BUT THEN HE SAID. IF YOU GO EVIL I WILL TAKE OVER YOUR CHARACTER!!! Wtf? Is this a common practice among GM's? I can't be evil for a little bit. Would you have shifted the characters alignment? My god is gorzen ( the nature dude) I think my Character acted appropriately. Would that be violating my gods code? I really read up on the god. He only cares for nature. So when I saw the way this animal was being treated I confronted the guy. He was a "this is my property, I can do what I want." And continued to beat the animal. What's your take on this? Will my alignment change in your game? And do you take over a PC once they become evil?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not a rules question.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
you were performing a neutral neutral action by upholding your faith. though this was probably on the evil end, as you could have probably done something more legal, or just set the animal free or what ever.
but yeah a few GMs will NPC your character if he's evil, usually for weird reasons, it generally isn't a healthy practice.
edit: yeah probably move this thread to advice, flagging for move.
Not a rules question.
Sorry I thought this was a rule in the game. I've never seen a person play a evil Character. I assumed that this is what happened to them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even if there were a rule against it, there's always rule zero - ultimately, the GM makes the rules.
It's my opinion that rules questions are for GMs, and players asking them are kind of wasting their time. It's not like you can show your GM this thread and say, "see, these guys on the internet say I can still play even if my character goes evil!"
Why don't GM's allow evil characters? I remember he said something like " you can do what ever you want, when your evil." I will admit I have not looked up on how a evil Character is suppose to act. But I would assume they could do just about anything. Is it to powerful of a alignment? I thought chaotic natural was the best alignment you can act how you want. And NO he didn't not tell me about this alignment shifting, PC snatching trick. I really need to look more into the communities views on evil characters. I honestly don't think my characters alignment should have changed. Thanks for the quick responses.
Even if there were a rule against it, there's always rule zero - ultimately, the GM makes the rules.
It's my opinion that rules questions are for GMs, and players asking them are kind of wasting their time. It's not like you can show your GM this thread and say, "see, these guys on the internet say I can still play even if my character goes evil!"
I thought that was the point of this site. The developers are just guy on the internet. I show them FAQ, RAW, RAI, all the time an I get it from some person on the internet. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought that was the point of this site. The developers are just guy on the internet. I show them FAQ, RAW, RAI, all the time an I get it from some person on the internet. :)Even if there were a rule against it, there's always rule zero - ultimately, the GM makes the rules.
It's my opinion that rules questions are for GMs, and players asking them are kind of wasting their time. It's not like you can show your GM this thread and say, "see, these guys on the internet say I can still play even if my character goes evil!"
That is the purpose - to ask a question, get an answer, etc...but unless your GM changes his mind, it doesn't matter for diddly squat what anyone on here says. The GM makes the rules, and a player can argue until he's blue in the face, if he goes, "nope, I disagree," then you're plain SOL.
That's why I say it's more a tool to help GMs confused by ambiguous rules explanations. Because as a player rather than a GM, disagreeing with your GM's ruling, running to the rules forum to get a consensus agreeing with your opinion, and running that backup by your GM is pretty disrespectful of the position he holds in the game.
To be clear, I'm in agreement with the others here that a) snatching PCs for being evil is a bit silly as long as they're motivated to continue the adventure and are NOT engaging in any sort of PVP with the other players and b) if it was a possibility, he should've warned all of you beforehand.
However, he did warn you just now, you now know how to prevent it from happening, and it's totally within his rights as a GM to say "I don't want to deal with evil characters, so if you go evil, you go bye", and no matter how many of us may disagree with whether it is a good idea or not, it's within his rights as GM, and it's kind of a punk move to go behind his back and seek a way to "officially prove him wrong" for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"No evil PCs" is a reasonably common agreement/houserule. There's nothing explicitly against it in the written rules though - it's just something a lot of people want to exclude. (We don't generally have any evil PCs at our table). As such, the DM is within his rights, but in my view it should really have been made explicit at the campaign's commencement.
It does seem a draconian approach to change someone's alignment and then require a new PC rather than at least giving them a chance to atone. I guess that's a sign the DM is REALLY firm in his views against evil PCs. At least he gave you warning.
That is the purpose - to ask a question, get an answer, etc...but unless your GM changes his mind, it doesn't matter for diddly squat what anyone on here says. The GM makes the rules, and a player can argue until he's blue in the face, if he goes, "nope, I disagree," then you're plain SOL.
unless of course you know you got a bad GM, and now that you asked and you go off to find a better group.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I presume the god you're referring to is "Gozreh," god of nature, weather, and the sea. While his clerics can access the animal domain there's no mention that the god has any focus on the fair treatment of animals; not to say your character can't interpret his faith that way. You may need to be wary of using a poor understanding of the setting to justify uncharacteristic actions rather than allowing a character's beliefs to guide his actions.
Yeah I was kind of mad that he changed my alignment and said he would take my Character if he went evil. I really did think this was a rule. I have never seen a evil Character. And I just assumed once your alignment shifted. The GM takes over your Character like the lycanthrop curse. I do apologies for posting it on the rules questions forms. I'm still relatively new to the forms. I do ask a lot of questions.
I presume the god you're referring to is "Gozreh," god of nature, weather, and the sea. While his clerics can access the animal domain there's no mention that the god has any focus on the fair treatment of animals; not to say your character can't interpret his faith that way. You may need to be wary of using a poor understanding of the setting to justify uncharacteristic actions rather than allowing a character's beliefs to guide his actions.
I'm not getting what your trying to say. I thought his whole thing was the peace of nature. And protecting it. I do see where your going with the " fair treatment of animals". But I do really really think it would be deeply implied in the case of this god. From the little I could scramble up that's really all he cares about. And it even says he dose not like one of the gods because he keeps encroaching on his forest.
I presume the god you're referring to is "Gozreh," god of nature, weather, and the sea. While his clerics can access the animal domain there's no mention that the god has any focus on the fair treatment of animals; not to say your character can't interpret his faith that way. You may need to be wary of using a poor understanding of the setting to justify uncharacteristic actions rather than allowing a character's beliefs to guide his actions.I'm not getting what your trying to say. I thought his whole thing was the peace of nature. And protecting it. I do see where your going with the " fair treatment of animals". But I do really really think it would be deeply implied in the case of this god. From the little I could scramble up that's really all he cares about. And it even says he dose not like one of the gods because he keeps encroaching on his forest.If you were to get the GM to change his mind due to your character's worship of Gozreh, just remember to be consistent. Treat animals as innocent humans even if it's very inconvenient for you. You can't kill that boar blocking the way to someplace you need to go, and you can't stand for your party members to do it, either. The boar in your character's religious interpretation is equal to an innocent humanoid who just can't understand your language, as cows are to Hindus.
You could run by the GM the ways in which your character's views restrict his actions. I don't know if that would bring the GM around, but if I were a GM I'd go along with it, and with those views, your actions were consistent with True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral IMO. (Lawful Neutral would still accept that the law says that the circus master owns the animals).
Oh yes this Is already in play. I have a baby mammoth. I'm playing a scared hunter ( inquisitor) I passed my roll to calm down thragtusk. I think that was his name. He is at O'legs right now. And these two poison things we met at the river. I use Handel animal on all animals before I attack. Some can't be helped. Like a bear who almost killed me with a full round attack. I failed my Handel animal check twice. He just got really mad I didn't mind him attacking me but then he went for the caster. I crit and he fell. However I did the same with a pack of worg. I killed 2 and set the leader go. Handel animal don't work on those guys tho. " tryed to lure me out pretending to be a helpless lady." Psh I'm a Jamaican mon. I was just going to let the lady die. What you doing in the middle of the forest by yourself. But the caster woke everybody up to go investigate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if there were a rule against it, there's always rule zero - ultimately, the GM makes the rules.
I've never really agreed with this. Pathfinder's (and DnD's) emphasis that "DM Fiat has the final say" adds in my opinion an unhealthy power dynamic to the table.
While I believe that the rules should be bendable for the needs of any particular table, and that having a neutral arbiter (the DM) of the rules is necessary to keep order at a table - I do not agree with any kind of totalitarianesque system where the DM says "My way or the highway." Because that's a recipe for ruining the fun of the game and risking table disbandment.
Ultimately, while the DM is important to mete out the rules. Everyone (together) have more say about what flies at a table than any single person.
And frankly? The Player has the ultimate veto on ANY DM decision they disagree with vehemently enough on -> "I quit."
There's also the nuclear option available to the other players if they agree on it. It's called -> "You're fired."
|
Okay, I don't know why everyone is beating around the freaking bush.
Arcanine, there is no rule in Pathfinder that says that shifting your character's alignment to evil causes you to lose control of your character. Period. End of story.
Now, some DM's do that, but your DM is being a tad ridiculous. Alignment shouldn't shift due to a single action, as it represents a character's overall actions and demeanor. Even so, unlike older editions of D&D, there is no real penalty for changing your character's alignment. It just represents a personal shift in overall attitude, which seems hardly justified by a single action.
Making a character who goes Evil into an NPC is a pretty common houserule among GMs who don't want Evil PCs. This should be something they warn you about ahead of time though, same as any other houserule. Additionally, you don't generally change alignment from a single act unless it's really really extreme. You haven't described anything else your character has done though, so this may be part of a pattern of other evil acts and this one was just the straw that broke the camel's back.
As for what you did, that's just straight up Evil (provided I'm reading the broken english correctly). You set up the murder of the ringleader for abuse of a gorilla. That's a neutral act. Then you framed an innocent man (who you never said did anything wrong at all). That's mildly evil. Then you had your patsy murdered and framed the gorilla. That's capital E evil. Also isn't the gorilla going to be put down for murdering a humanoid? It can't exactly defend itself (and may not even have rights). That's kind of the opposite of the whole "trying to save the gorilla" thing.
As for your god, Gozreh is the Neutral god of nature. This means you're probably in line with your god's ethos by murdering all of the circus folk keeping animals captive. It's still an Evil act, because doing stuff "for your god" doesn't suddenly give it the alignment of your god. You could have bought the animals, you could have just set them free, lots of things you could have done other than murder. Sorry, double-murder and framing the gorilla.
Well my character got a tug on the arm from our halfling spymaster. He winked and said it will be taken care of. Meanwhile I was with the ruler of the kingdom. Having a good'ol time. The halfling didn't tell me what he was going to do. I woke up the next morning he was dead. The halfling didn't try to pin the strong man. But all of the evidence pointed to him. The ring leader was doing the deed with the strong mans daughter. And he was strangled to death by a set of large hands. I simply asked the people of the circus could I have the gorilla. The ring master's widow said yes, and she decided to stay in the kingdom. I just asked for a pardon of the gorilla from the ruler of the kingdom. I am his general and he owed me one. We are a neutral kingdom. Soooo I didn't technically set it up. It just happened like that. I nodded the spymaster nodded and I woke up and OMGozreh, he was dead. :)
Okay, I don't know why everyone is beating around the freaking bush.
Arcanine, there is no rule in Pathfinder that says that shifting your character's alignment to evil causes you to lose control of your character. Period. End of story.
Now, some DM's do that, but your DM is being a tad ridiculous. Alignment shouldn't shift due to a single action, as it represents a character's overall actions and demeanor. Even so, unlike older editions of D&D, there is no real penalty for changing your character's alignment. It just represents a personal shift in overall attitude, which seems hardly justified by a single action.
Ty
I don't wholeheartedly agree with the "take control of evil characters" rule, though I know it is very commonly used. Personally, if I notice a player who is going around doing whatever he likes with no regard to the people he might effect, I would just talk to him out of character, let him know he is either not playing his alignment or (if evil aligned) needs to play smarter.
IRL No evil guy prances about portraying his alignment on his forhead, so why do it in-game? If they want to play an evil character and can be mature about it I say let them, if PvP becomes a problem I will intervene.
As for your situation, killing the guy probably wasn't the best option, if you are CN it is okay, N you maybe can get by with a good reason. Though, either way I'm pretty sure the option of just releasing the gorilla was still there, killing the guy was a tad unnecessary. Unnecessary killing does usually constitute an evil personality. Though, there is atonement. I see two possible options for you to keep playing your character:
1) Talk to your GM about atonement, have your character go to trial and get some sort of probation put on him. Ask you GM if he will let your character take responsibility for his actions and atone for his crime.
2) Try to convince him to let you play an evil character as long as you keep PvP out of the picture, and avoid acting like a stupid cartoon villain. You can be devious and get your way without slashing your way through crowds or tossing demands everywhere you go like you're royalty.This is the best advice I can give you. Hope it helps!
Yes I agree with I didn't have to kill him. I tryed to disarm him while he was beating the gorilla. I did but then the party stopped me. He then continued to beat it. It was about to be a PVP situation. My morals with the Character couldn't let him continue to beat the animal. The arcanist ( the king ) calmed me down enough to walk away. The guy was a creep. My characters thing is. " I don't have anger issues, I just prefer to solve my problems with violence." That why I'm the general of the army's. I will use these next time thx.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I don't know why everyone is beating around the freaking bush.
Arcanine, there is no rule in Pathfinder that says that shifting your character's alignment to evil causes you to lose control of your character. Period. End of story.
Now, some DM's do that, but your DM is being a tad ridiculous. Alignment shouldn't shift due to a single action, as it represents a character's overall actions and demeanor. Even so, unlike older editions of D&D, there is no real penalty for changing your character's alignment. It just represents a personal shift in overall attitude, which seems hardly justified by a single action.
Alignment shift isn't really covered much by the rules. Personally for me it would entirely depend on the action. A single act of stabbing a random stranger on the street of a otherwise neutral settlement would send someone straight to CE in my game. Most actions though would require a pattern of behavior before I'd shift an alignment.
Even if there were a rule against it, there's always rule zero - ultimately, the GM makes the rules.I've never really agreed with this. Pathfinder's (and DnD's) emphasis that "DM Fiat has the final say" adds in my opinion an unhealthy power dynamic to the table.
While I believe that the rules should be bendable for the needs of any particular table, and that having a neutral arbiter (the DM) of the rules is necessary to keep order at a table - I do not agree with any kind of totalitarianesque system where the DM says "My way or the highway." Because that's a recipe for ruining the fun of the game and risking table disbandment.
Ultimately, while the DM is important to mete out the rules. Everyone (together) have more say about what flies at a table than any single person.
And frankly? The Player has the ultimate veto on ANY DM decision they disagree with vehemently enough on -> "I quit."
There's also the nuclear option available to the other players if they agree on it. It's called -> "You're fired."
Yeah this exact thing almost happened a few weeks earlier. He wanted me to change my god. I was like WUT? So I did. But then he took all of my powers. And I had to kill a mummy to atone this thing was wrecking us. We had to run the first time we met it. Only one person got mummy rot thank god. But then we were stalked by it for so long and he also gave me the nightmare debuff EVERY MORNING! thankfully I had heart of the fields human trait. He was killing the fun for me. I was taking a massive negative every time I woke up. I almost left. But he saw it was a bit too much and stopped the nightmares and just made them flavor. He didn't like me having a shield and a small sized reach weapon. He always missed my 1 point to hit me. But I still took my -2 to hit for inappropriately sized weapon. But I wasn't the problem. Trunks was ( my baby mammoth ) he always hit for devistating DMG. I will admit combat reflexes at level 1 is a game changer with a reach weapon.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since you're new around here, I don't know what you're aware of; sorry if I come off as patronizing: I don't mean to be!
You may wish to show your GM my rules for handling in-character and out-of-character alignment-based decisions: CLICK THESE WORDS (they'll take you to a post I made in an online game I'm running.
This may help smooth over a lot of issues he has with an evil character. Give him some time to think it over.
Also, give Alignment a once-over: it might help your case.
Neutral: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos (and thus neutral is sometimes called “true neutral”). Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character probably thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.
Neutral means you act naturally in any situation, without prejudice or compulsion.
This pretty much sums up your character's actions (unless you allowed the innocent man to be killed? It's a little unclear).
A very important statement within the alignment rules:
The first six alignments, lawful good through chaotic neutral, are standard alignments for player characters. The three evil alignments are usually for monsters and villains. With the GM's permission, a player may assign an evil alignment to his PC, but such characters are often a source of disruption and conflict with good and neutral party members. GMs are encouraged to carefully consider how evil PCs might affect the campaign before allowing them.
This is significant.
Also,
Changing Alignments
Alignment is a tool, a convenient shorthand you can use to summarize the general attitude of an NPC, region, religion, organization, monster, or even magic item.Certain character classes in Classes list repercussions for those who don't adhere to a specific alignment, and some spells and magic items have different effects on targets depending on alignment, but beyond that it's generally not necessary to worry too much about whether someone is behaving differently from his stated alignment. In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation—the only thing the GM needs to strive for is to be consistent as to what constitutes the difference between alignments like chaotic neutral and chaotic evil. There's no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls.
It's best to let players play their characters as they want. If a player is roleplaying in a way that you, as the GM, think doesn't fit his alignment, let him know that he's acting out of alignment and tell him why—but do so in a friendly manner. If a character wants to change his alignment, let him—in most cases, this should amount to little more than a change of personality, or in some cases, no change at all if the alignment change was more of an adjustment to more accurately summarize how a player, in your opinion, is portraying his character. In some cases, changing alignments can impact a character's abilities—see the class write-ups in Classes for details. An atonement spell may be necessary to repair damage done by alignment changes arising from involuntary sources or momentary lapses in personality.
Players who frequently have their characters change alignment should in all likelihood be playing chaotic neutral characters.
With all of that, it really could be argued that the GM is attempting to follow the rules (it's possible that what he intended as "friendly" did not come off that way to you) - the hesitation with permitting alignment, and the noted "you're not actually that alignment" reading.
Further, in Pathfinder Society Organized Play, there is an actual system in place that GMs note if characters have been doing evil things, and a character can change alignment... and evil alignments are not permitted in Organized Play.
(Organized Play is where you can take your character to any of a bunch of different tables, so long as you note which modules you've completed. It's kind of a "play anywhere, play organized" kind of thing with lots of paperwork involved to make sure everything is kosher.)
So, again, the GM has some amount of justification, here.
That said, the most important part of all of this is for everyone - GM and player alike - to have fun. Try to structure your playing toward that goal.
If it really looks like it might be a mostly-mechanical issue, and you want to maintain your own character, you can look into purchasing some atonement effects from a good creature - perhaps a few scrolls. That way you can atone yourself into a good alignment after you start slipping toward evil.
Be aware, however, that many GMs will frown on that tactic - and with good reason! - because some players take it as a "free pass" to do evil things without repercussions. That means you have to clear it with the GM; they are well within their rights to say "No, sir: I don't like it." and prevent it from working.
But let me be clear: while there is no hard and fast rule about evil characters, some GMs are simply uninterested in following the stories (and hence immersing themselves in the mindset) of evil PCs, because, frankly, the PCs are supposed to be "heroes" - and forcing that dissonance on them is simply too much, making them uncomfortable and causing their situation to be miserable.
Think of it like watching a show that a friend of yours may love, but you absolutely hate. Said show might make you uncomfortable or miserable - why would you continue to watch it? You'd allow your friend to watch it, sure, but you'd avoid doing so - you wouldn't come over when he's watching, or he'd switch it off while the two of you did something else if you did.
Alignment is like that, except the GMs are the ones with the remote controls. Hence, if they don't like a show, they can (and, in fact, it's their job to) "change the channel" so to speak - not just for themselves, but for everybody.
This is something that's very important to remember. He's not trying to mess with you or harm your experience as a player (at least, I'd think he's not): he's trying to make the "right" decision for everyone, whatever that is. Bear that in mind, and bear with him, even when he makes decisions you don't particularly like. Talk to him about it, sure, but try to do so in a respectful, friendly, non-recriminating manner.
Regardless: happy gaming!
I don't wholeheartedly agree with the "take control of evil characters" rule, though I know it is very commonly used. Personally, if I notice a player who is going around doing whatever he likes with no regard to the people he might effect, I would just talk to him out of character, let him know he is either not playing his alignment or (if evil aligned) needs to play smarter.
I'm kind of split on the issue of evil characters. On the one hand, I've had some really fun games where there were evil party members. On the other, I've had games where someone decided that being Evil was a license to walk into town and start randomly raping, stealing, and murdering, not to mention PvP issues.
If a GM only has experience with evil characters as disruptive asshats, I can't blame them for banning evil.
Alignment shift isn't really covered much by the rules. Personally for me it would entirely depend on the action. A single act of stabbing a random stranger on the street of a otherwise neutral settlement would send someone straight to CE in my game. Most actions though would require a pattern of behavior before I'd shift an alignment.
I agree with the general principle: the only time a single act should qualify for an alignment shift is if it is a massively significant one. Completely unprovoked murder, selling souls to a devil for power, human sacrifice, etc. I certainly don't think a worshiper of a nature god killing an animal abuser qualifies as that extreme.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... He didn't like me having a shield and a small sized reach weapon. He always missed my 1 point to hit me. But I still took my -2 to hit for inappropriately sized weapon. But I wasn't the problem. Trunks was ( my baby mammoth ) he always hit for devistating DMG. I will admit combat reflexes at level 1 is a game...
I think this hints that the problem isent you killing a guy for hurting a animal. But about you apperantly running the GM the wrong way in several ways. I must admit someone showing up with a small longspear(on a medium PC) and wanting to get reach would be laugthed at in my game, but you cannot hit that much(with -2 on a 3/4 bab guy) or hurt that much with a one handed weapon.
If my GM ditent like me having somthing i would ask him how much he ditent like it and possibly change it.
... He didn't like me having a shield and a small sized reach weapon. He always missed my 1 point to hit me. But I still took my -2 to hit for inappropriately sized weapon. But I wasn't the problem. Trunks was ( my baby mammoth ) he always hit for devistating DMG. I will admit combat reflexes at level 1 is a game...I think this hints that the problem isent you killing a guy for hurting a animal. But about you apperantly running the GM the wrong way in several ways. I must admit someone showing up with a small longspear(on a medium PC) and wanting to get reach would be laugthed at in my game, but you cannot hit that much(with -2 on a 3/4 bab guy) or hurt that much with a one handed weapon.
If my GM ditent like me having somthing i would ask him how much he ditent like it and possibly change it.
Yes that's what I was trying to tell him. Because at lower levels sure I can roll high. But at mid game I fall off dramatically. I checked the rules it works, it's just not that good at level 6+. But I do do a lot of weird stuff tho. I can understand your point.
I don't wholeheartedly agree with the "take control of evil characters" rule, though I know it is very commonly used. Personally, if I notice a player who is going around doing whatever he likes with no regard to the people he might effect, I would just talk to him out of character, let him know he is either not playing his alignment or (if evil aligned) needs to play smarter.I'm kind of split on the issue of evil characters. On the one hand, I've had some really fun games where there were evil party members. On the other, I've had games where someone decided that being Evil was a license to walk into town and start randomly raping, stealing, and murdering, not to mention PvP issues.
If a GM only has experience with evil characters as disruptive asshats, I can't blame them for banning evil.
Alignment shift isn't really covered much by the rules. Personally for me it would entirely depend on the action. A single act of stabbing a random stranger on the street of a otherwise neutral settlement would send someone straight to CE in my game. Most actions though would require a pattern of behavior before I'd shift an alignment.I agree with the general principle: the only time a single act should qualify for an alignment shift is if it is a massively significant one. Completely unprovoked murder, selling souls to a devil for power, human sacrifice, etc. I certainly don't think a worshiper of a nature god killing an animal abuser qualifies as that extreme.
Nah, my toon dose nothing like this. At most he might turn a blind eye to something. And try to get the party to keep moving forward.
Since you're new around here, I don't know what you're aware of; sorry if I come off as patronizing: I don't mean to be!
You may wish to show your GM my rules for handling in-character and out-of-character alignment-based decisions: CLICK THESE WORDS (they'll take you to a post I made in an online game I'm running.
This may help smooth over a lot of issues he has with an evil character. Give him some time to think it over.
Also, give Alignment a once-over: it might help your case.
Neutral: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos (and thus neutral is sometimes called “true neutral”). Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character probably thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.
Neutral means you act naturally in any situation, without prejudice or compulsion.
This pretty much sums up your character's actions (unless you allowed the innocent man to be killed? It's a little unclear).
A very important statement within the alignment rules:
The first six alignments, lawful good through chaotic neutral, are standard alignments for player characters. The three evil alignments are usually for monsters and villains. With the GM's permission, a player may assign an evil alignment to his PC, but such characters are...
Oh no man not at all. Feed me that knowledge. I understand the PvP aspect and making the GM going throughout hurdles for you. But this isn't the case I don't kill good people for no reason, the toon dose not cheat, steal, he try's to be as honest as he can. But I thought the spy master or royal assassin did his job he assassinated a problem in the kingdom. My Character didn't know.
Nah, my toon dose nothing like this. At most he might turn a blind eye to something. And try to get the party to keep moving forward.Why are you running a cartoon, and why would it dose somebody?
No a character. And I don't get what your talking about.
Don't use toon if you mean character.
And he's referrine to the typo "dose" which should be "does".
Don't use toon if you mean character.
And he's referrine to the typo "dose" which should be "does".
Oh good to know. I'm a PC player use toon a lot.
From the sounds of it, the GM seems to be forcing his own morals on the situation, and in a way that I find rather jarring. From what you described your character clearly had a problem with what was going on and the GM at least was basically saying, nope you are wrong to feel that way. Personally I would seek a new group or GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh good to know. I'm a PC player use toon a lot.
If you're talking about pencil, paper, and dice games but use "toon", I'm going to think you're talking about Steve Jackson Games 'TOON' rpg.
Killing the NPC wasn't neccessary, at least as far as I can gather from your original post, but I wasn't there. Maybe a better course of action would have been to beat the tar out him, or give him a few knocks and scare the hell out of him. But you conspired with another PC to murder and then took steps to cover it up.
Second, I'm not sure how much you know actually read up on Gozreh. Yes she/he is a nature deity whose portfolio includes animals, but his/her primary focus in on the sea and the sky but not neccessarily the creatures that like in them. I mean, a gorilla doesn't like in either one of those places. I'm not sure retaliation for mistreating circus animals is normal for followers of the diety.
But you can turn into some good (not in the alignment sense). Your character snapped and did some bad things. Is this foreshadowing of other deeds to come? Or will your character regret the choices and behave differently in the future? I mean, the worse thing you the player could do is to carry on like it never happened. You role-played leading up to it, so now role-play the aftermath.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why don't GM's allow evil characters? I remember he said something like " you can do what ever you want, when your evil." I will admit I have not looked up on how a evil Character is suppose to act. But I would assume they could do just about anything. Is it to powerful of a alignment?
No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.
*Not* more powerful. You will know the good from the bad when you are calm, at peace, passive.
The problem with evil PC's in a party of non-evil is that evil by it's very nature is selfish, putting the wants and needs of ones self above other considerations.
Sure, evil PC(s) will team up with others or fellow evil when it is in their own best interest, doing so even for an extended period when they can see the goal; but it is EXTREMELY difficult to keep a RP party going for multiple sessions when everyone has their own agenda.
We had a mostly neutral party in one sandbox campaign and the DM had us do such extensive backstories and life goals for them that even THAT campaign fell apart as our goals and the opportunities during the sandbox play did not coincide - for roleplay reasons we discontinued the adventure because it just was not logical for us to continue together.
I could envision a campaign where PC's are told by their dark "masters" they MUST cooperate and care for common defense of one another for a common dark goal, but that would be a themed campaign with a definitive direction, not sandbox play.
The problem with evil PC's in a party of non-evil is that evil by it's very nature is selfish, putting the wants and needs of ones self above other considerations.
Sure, evil PC(s) will team up with others or fellow evil when it is in their own best interest, doing so even for an extended period when they can see the goal; but it is EXTREMELY difficult to keep a RP party going for multiple sessions when everyone has their own agenda.
We had a mostly neutral party in one sandbox campaign and the DM had us do such extensive backstories and life goals for them that even THAT campaign fell apart as our goals and the opportunities during the sandbox play did not coincide - for roleplay reasons we discontinued the adventure because it just was not logical for us to continue together.
I could envision a campaign where PC's are told by their dark "masters" they MUST cooperate and care for common defense of one another for a common dark goal, but that would be a themed campaign with a definitive direction, not sandbox play.
I like that idea. Could you role play that your god sent you to team up with this group to find out what they were up to? Don't provoke anyone act as a normal person would. I don't think a evil character would walk around broadcasting it. Actually they might just be some of the most pure, " honest" and righteous people in the game if you role play it correctly. When I think of evil I think of naruto the show or full metal alchemist. The evil characters work together for a common goal. When you see a army of undead yeah they are all evil but they all want to kill everybody else as a team. The evil people in many games have people high ranking above them and do as they are told just like any other PC. You can be evil and generous it would fit you better to " look" like a saint to get more evil done. They fit hand in hand.
Yeah, evil characters definitely work better in a defined AP-style campaign than they do in a wide open sandbox. A tightly plotted game has a lot more keeping the party working together, generally some variant on "The Big Bad will kill us all (and probably a lot of other people too) if we don't work together."